Current Affairs

02/18/2012

Narrative Part II

NAR·RA·TIVE

a story or account of events, experiences, orthe like, whether true or fictitious.

2.

a book, literary work, etc., containing such astory.

3.

the art, technique, or process of narrating:Somerset Maugham was a master of narrative.

Politically Correct

Before investigating the roots of communism in our culture and especially in our colleges, I presumed the dissidents were working very slowly to remain undiscovered, but that assumption proved why assumptions can get you killed. In fact, from 1967, this counter culture morphed within two years and grew like a metastasized cancer of revolutionary violence from the education industry onto the broader culture. Those entering the institutions of higher learning are predominantly impressionable young adults still pliable from parenting. (which is the instillation of discipline and virtue) Twenty years after the close of WWII, parents were astonished to discover their kids were filled with horrific ideals upon returning home from college. They went to college Christians and came home not just unbelieving, but atheist antagonists toward all religions but especially Christianity. Went patriotic, came back anti-American. Went dependent on church and local community for compassionate outreach and came home making demands on government for compassion programs, making passionate arguments for Socialism. Went ready to join the productive community and returned prepared to collapse the economy and grind down American values.

In many circumstances the graduates are not made aware of these ideas' origins. They are simply sold and believe in the communist principles without knowing or having questioned their consequences. So they take these values with them into their workplaces and social circles and apply them as their default choice to correct perceived problems or even contrive problems to correct capitalism's weaknesses. Later on, they may hear a charismatic define Communism then become an overt advocate of this failed system, otherwise they remain a silent advocate.

Many intelligent voices on the right are former Democrats who say their party moved away from their values. The extreme Left moved the Democrat Party from promoting self preservation and self determination to government protection and dependence. That is only the 'change' recognizable to the average citizen eventually (30 years in the making) enraging them enough to get into the fray and oppose their agenda push through the TEA party demonstrations. That visible change is what drove me to investigate the 'movement' further. Now that I'm looking deeper, the 'change' is terrifying.

What began as compassion motivation, (legupprograms) morphed into the dependence motivation, (handout programs) which attract huge campaign donations and special interest PAC (Political Action Committee) activist support. You will never hear a Democrat politician today, call for the people to "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." of earlier Democrats. The right have their share of massive program defenders as well, though they mouth the smaller government sentiments of the conservative core. When conservative president, George W. Bush asked Congress to move Social Security Insurance from government management to private sector investment under strict guidelines, the conservative base matched the left in cries against the move as too risky despite the glaring facts proving the present system is due to bankrupt and collapse within our present retirement community's lifetime.

See if you can find a tax payer subsidized college with a U.S. history program emulating this kind of pride in our heritage from 1924. Find one which is even willing to mention our form of government is the longest lasting in all of history.

A native of Ohio and a graduate of Ohio State, ARTHUR M. SCHLESINGER was appointed to his professorship at Harvard in 1924. As a teacher and author he is internationally respected for his knowledge of American history, and in the paper that follows he reminds us that over the years this nation has made its weight felt more by ideas than by wealth.

The United States is often considered a young nation, but in fact it is next to the oldest continuous government in the world. The reason is that the spirit of its people has always been empirical and pragmatic, dedicated to equalitarian ends but willing to realize them by flexible means. In the European sense of the term, America's major political parties are not parties at all, because they do not divide over basic ideologies. Neither wishes to overturn or replace the existing political and economic order; they merely desire to alter it at slower or faster rates of speed.

One of our proudest achievements has been the creation of a system of controlled capitalism that yields the highest living standards on earth and has made possible a society as nearly classless as man has ever known. The profit system as it has developed in America is a multiprofit system, sharing its benefits with all segments of society: capital, labor, and the consuming masses. Yet even this was not due to a preconceived blueprint; it too was the result of trial and error. Unprincipled businessmen had first to be brought to heel by government restraints and the growing power of organized labor before they came to learn that they must serve the general good in pursuing their selfish interests. Now labor is feeling the restraint.

The Power of Critical Theory

The after affects of a culture losing it's foundation of morals (through the communist ideal in the institutions of higher learning mocking and shaming students who profess any faith) is accepting the idea that the ends justify the means. Any unjust action can be justified as long as their 'intention' is to improve the general welfare of that society. (The very same ideal which produced the killing fields of Polpot, the Gulags, the Holocaust, and every Socialist violent revolution in the last century all over the world.) Providers of the news and information services have, on a personal level opted to use their positions to advocate agendas against their own stated industrial set of ideals. In effect, they create and repeat a national narrative, a cloaked criticism (by highlighting the worst of virtue encouraging individuals, organizations, and events while highlighting the best of their opposites) of Christianity, U.S. involvement in foreign affairs, and of the spread of Western values in Eastern cultures. In this way they are shifting the Overton Window so the general populace accepts the new 'normal' perspective.

What we would have considered taboo and a fatal nominee flaw a few years ago, is suddenly okay evidently. Sex in the White House? Not a problem… Cheated on your wife and divorced? Not a problem… Buddy around with known radicals and Marxists? Definitely not a problem… And the Overton Window slides inexorably to the left.

This dramatic movement from a culture of independence and self preservation to foolish, self destructive dependence does not happen in a free and open society without a massive, all encompassing propaganda program. Once planted in the fertile soil of inexperienced youth, the communist agenda took root and in short order no longer needed the instigators and funding of the collapsed foreign influence. The indoctrinated began authoring their own propaganda and strategizing their local interests. This group continues the original intent to 'grind America's values down' and function as a fifth column using our values of individual liberty and virtue to turn us into the self hating fools you now observe on the evening news agitating for selfish concerns. Those guys are only the visible agitation to manufacture and get their issues noticed. The next level is the news agencies who pick up the narrative and project it into the national discussion. Another group use our laws and courts to force the issue into the decision process. Finally, still another group uses Political Action Committees to elect and lobby individual and party politicians.

That, my friends, is why the (political center) Libertarian advocacy against promoting morality in education and culture is untenable. Our founders knew the nation could not survive without morals and they stated the best and almost only source of cultural morality is the Christian church in our culture. Those same founders ensured rights and freedoms to all religions based on their experiences with the Crown of England, but you have to face some realities. Not all religions are peace and order loving or even life loving. Without morality liberty cannot exist. In a national and generational sense, one cannot exist without the other. The closer the values, not necessarily the religion, the more cohesive and stronger the national identity. Very few cultures value true liberty. Most value and respect authoritarianism manifested in various degrees of socialist nations. When the people tire of the abuses that go along with such systems, they revolt and prop up a new authoritarian. This style of governance has no demonstration of lasting more than five generations under one form of government regulated by one Constitution and identified by one name. Either they die with their charismatic or strong leader or they replace him through violence.

02/17/2012

Introducing the Narrator.Part INoah Webster's original dictionary definesNarrator: n. One that narrates; One that relates a series of events or transactions.Narrative: a.

1. Relating the particulars of an event or transaction; giving a particular or continued account.2. Apt or inclined to relate stories, or to tell particulars of events; story-telling.But wise through time and narrative with age.

Mr Webster had a different understanding of story telling than is recognized today. He presented a narrative as a factual telling of events while today the definition includes incorporation of the teller's perspective a.k.a. prejudiceMcMillan ThesaurusA story or an account of something that has happened.The RED SCAREIn the late 1800's, the communist experiment began to gain notoriety in nations around the world, mostly through revolutionary dissidents. Marx' book had been studied in think tanks and institutions of higher education of the day and was seriously debated. Having no track record to evaluate, it was considered a viable alternative to the nobility class rule and capitalist societies imitating the success of the United States. The U.S. was itself an experiment in new forms of governance and enjoyed a rapid growth in popularity among commoners due to it's liberty guarantees and to the ruling class due to it's economic, military, technological and political success in it's first 120 years. Even so, as all governments do, it has it's warts and abuses and being a free society with plenty of internal criticism, the faults were on prominent display for the whole world to see. These faults stood out in a time criticism wasn't allowed in most countries still under kings and emperors and had never been a part of their traditions of governance. This was the environment which bred the rise of communism and fascism in the early 20th century everywhere but would find fertile ground in Germany, Italy, Russia, and China along with many less consequential countries. Note: There is little difference between nationalists and Marxists as both always wind up under totalitarian rule. Communists dispute this as an ideology but the requirement for a popular or charismatic leader and the oligarchic regimes they wind up under demonstrate their uniform nature. The only difference being whether the winners of the prize of rule were the instigators or their opponents, generally an agent from the overthrown government's military or national police force.These Marxists appeared to be agitators and instigators of violence with stated goals of overthrowing their own rulers and governments. The rulers were literally observing the effects of communism on foreign soils as well as hear the dissident elements in their own people. Obviously, this worried the powers that were and should worry the powers that are.The Bolshevik Russian revolution of 1917 and Lenin's crew of 6 worked diligently to fill the power vacuum with centralized power and centralized management down to individual thought. Ironically, Lenin absorbed many of his methods and ideals by translating The Theory and Practice of Trade Unionism from American class warfare in labor struggles. As a fledgling government, Russia called for international communists to volunteer in the Spanish Civil war to defeat the internationally sponsored Nationalists. Spain's civil struggle served as a proving ground for Germany and Italy on the fascist side and Russia along with many communist societies from 53 free states in Europe and the Americas on the other side. Russia rewarded some 2800 survivors of the George Washington Brigade and the Abraham Lincoln Brigade with funds and materials they could use in their own country (U.S.) as dissidents once their service was completed in Spain. This occurred between the two world wars 1936-1940. While the allies worked alongside Russia against Germany in the second world war, the commie hunt in the U.S. was laid aside. At the end of WWII, the cold war began and the commie hunt was on again bigger than before.From the earliest days of the cold war with the U.S.S.R. the K.G.B. (their spy agency) were planting dissidents in our midst at key points to influence our culture and advance communist ideals in our society. They weren't the first communist influence on U.S. soil but they were the more strategic effort. These plants managed to initiate and inflate the present communist counter culture in our entertainment and education industries as well as labor and crime syndicates.Everyone with any knowledge of American history knows some part of the story of Senator Joe McCarthy who charged a list of State Dept. public servants with anti-American activities. These people were brought before Congress and interrogated on live TV with very little evidence being substantiated. McCarthy earned scorn for his efforts because he used intimidation and rumor to ruin innocent peoples' careers and finally failed when his attention turned toward members of the U.S. military. Three years before McCarthy gave his infamous 6 hour speech on the Senate floor, the HUAC (House Un-American Activities Committee) investigated and called for 324 film industry professionals to be banned from film production based on their affiliation and/or activities with Communists. Similarly, at least five universities dismissed an unnumbered cast of university professors based on their refusal to testify before Congress' HUAC prior to McCarthy's stint. By 1952, 47 states introduced and passed anti-subversion legislation which still stand. Ultimately unsuccessful, these attempts to cleanse the culture of communist inculcation essentially died through McCarthy's infamy bringing down a justified pillory of the Republican party.From the AAUP's own website I found this revelation. The sequence of events marking the turn around allowing university professors unaccountable free reign to subvert American culture in our tax money subsidized lecture theaters were a series of Supreme Court decisions reversing prior Supreme Court decisions."In a series of important decisions, the Supreme Court reversed itself on several anti-Communist decisions to reaffirm First Amendment principles, and the AAUP issued vocal “Friend of the Court” statements to help the Justices make the right decision. The first of these was Sweezy vs. New Hampshire in 1957, where it was decided that University of New Hampshire lecturer was well within his rights of academic freedom to refuse to answer state attorneys questions regarding the content of his lectures. In 1964, another important case, Baggitt vs. Bullitt, declaring loyalty oaths unconstitutional, involved the University of Washington, once more at the forefront of a national trend, this time in the right direction. The final significant reversal of Red Scare policies on the part of the Supreme Court came in 1967 in Keyishian v. Board of Regents which essentially declared it unconstitutional to prevent the hiring of university faculty as consequence of their political views."This makes me wonder who placed these Justices on the court. Shock and surprise, 6 of the first 9 to contribute to these decisions were placed by Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt who is the only president to serve 3 terms in office, (sparking bipartisan Congressional legislation intervention to limit the number of terms a president may serve) The Supreme Court was captal L Liberal dominated beginning with Roosevelt's court packing 6 Justice placements (sparking bipartisan intervention Congressional legislation.) then followed by Harry S. Truman Democrat who placed another 3 followed by Dwight D. Eisenhower Republican who placed 4 then John F. Kennedy Democrat placed 2 then Lyndon B. Johnson Democrat who placed 2. One Republican in the lot placed only 4 justices throughout this series of decisions. FDR would have assumed a kingly role had the Congress not blocked him on two major fronts including limited terms and court packing. He was the very definition of the leader the founding fathers feared would assume the office and the prime example of what they attempted to preempt by separating the powers of government. FDR fought tooth and nail to overcome these designed limitations attempting to centralize power in a national fascist fashion.While I am the first to recognize the importance of keeping an environment safe for the arena of ideas, especially for a discussion of best policy options, this important principle is currently being employed as the defense for anti-American brainwashing techniques (not hyperbole, actual COMMUNIST propaganda from self professed Communists and now includes their marriage to Islamic propagandists) for which the government and the private citizen pays vast sums of wealth. The college campus is uniquely servile to their methods because the students are committed to being there financially as well as having the family authoritarian pressing them to do well with their very special opportunity, essentially making them a captive audience. Similarly, Public Broadcasting is engaged in the same operation obviously scaled back because their audience is not captive and their ratings demonstrate their success and failure. (until last March, also on the taxpayers' dime)Back on topic.

Fifty years from graduation, their generation infiltrated every part of our culture including all careers requiring a higher education level. However, the evidence is nowhere more apparent than the Marx controlled news and information industry. These are big business corporations and their service is run as a business. In other words they choose their stories and present them in a way that attracts the consumer. So they are more a form of entertainment industry than an information provider. Ergo the newsy phrase, "If it bleeds, it leads." The editors, anchors and producers cannot present every news worthy current event, thus they are required to pick and choose among the offerings presented by their reporters. As a corporation, they focus on the melodramatic entries to attract the consumer which rewards the reporter who focuses on and presents the melodrama. Corporations have always been held in low esteem since the inculcation of propaganda in corporate strategy. In other words, they lead our opinions to convince us we cannot be happy or even survive without their product or service just to increase their profit margins.

This is different than the abdication of personal virtue and morality. News and information corporations depend on the product of the communist ideologue infiltrated institutions of higher learning for their new staff. The industry must hire professionally trained people to present the current events to the consumer in a precise and clear way the consumer can quickly grasp and understand and digest. The indoctrinated college graduates become indoctrinating news industry staffers. Similarly, law offices need researchers and other staffers to write and review legal documents which meet the exacting standards of the legal industry. Again, the current educators are required to have teaching degrees before they can be hired on to a school. Hollywood is a different animal but the dissidents have also been planted in this industry and they also have many graduates from the indoctrinating colleges sufficient that these two industries reflect one another's beliefs and values. Between these four industries, an impressive number of dissidents have been placed in control of all our information services as well as a major political party and many higher courts including the Supreme Court.

Therefor, you must evaluate what is the most successful form of government and which form you prefer to live under. If you have any awareness of actual history rather than what you've been indoctrinated with you will value the original American form. If you then care to preserve or reform it then investigate the historical record for yourself, and do it well enough that you can defend it's principles anywhere and at anytime. You must know 1. what is the root of American culture 2. what is the majority of American culture 3. how has that majority's rule treated other religions 4. what are America's real faults, 5. what are her virtues and accomplishments 6. the values of other religions differ from the majority's (in some cases diametrically opposed) and you are going to lose even the possibility to maintain peace and liberty without setting some guidelines for which values are profitable for our culture. Know how to articulate this information and how to describe your reasoning for the new requirements and standards for Americans.I am not suggesting we attempt to eliminate other faiths. What I am suggesting is national and legal venues to encourage our own religion as well as the religions who's values are nearest our own and discourage those with values opposed to the American ideal of peace, respect for life, and freedom. The absolute necessity of preserving the only bastion of liberty in the world based on rights (not assigned or given by man and therefor not adjustable or susceptible to opinion) requires every man and woman to proactively promote the injection of moral discipline everywhere in our culture. Every other constitutional government is based on rights assigned or decided by man and are subject to the maleable opinions of generations. With regard to the theo-political phenomenon of Islam, the onus is on them. If they cannot self correct, if they are unwilling to correct the radical elements within their own ranks, then deportation, incarceration, and execution for violent crime in the name of their faith is in order. By the way, this is the exact same treatment we have exercised with Christians' offenses.

01/25/2012

I like sex. I want sex. However, I haven't seen too many examples of really content and happy marriages. I know most married people say they like being married and they wouldn't change anything if they had it to do over, but I also see more discontent in their lives than I'm willing to live with. Therefor, I have chosen not to seek marriage. I am not against marriage. I would probably go with the program if God put a woman in my life I found that kind of wonderful. I just do not have the desire to jump into a lifestyle that will steal my contentedness, even as a Christian who has vowed to live a celibate life until marriage. How serious am I about that? Its been about 20 years.

Wow! Do I ever want sex!!

After my marriage broke up, I thought I did want the married life again. I was just going to be a lot wiser about my choice and I was going to work on being the kind of guy that lady would want. Here's a word to the wise for you young people, "If you find a suitable mate but think you can either do better or you're not done sowing those wild oats, drop folly and snatch up that fruit cause later the field is harvested and all that remains is the gleanings. Knowuttamean?" This one has great looks and a rotten attitude, that one has a great attitude, but I just can't imagine... You know. Another looks great, has a great attitude but is still wallowing in her folly and has no interest in self discipline. Still another meets all the requirements I'm looking for, but apparently I don't fit hers and she is bound and determined to mold me into whatever vision she has in her head. And its weird when a pack of manipulators are trying to match you up with their pick and set you up for a blindside. Then you find yourself in a conversation with a woman who just assumes all men will if she invites him, "Look, you're a beautiful woman but I'm just not that kind'a man!" So I won't and now she's insulted cause I wouldn't and that must mean something is wrong with one of us and she frankly states it has to be me cuz she's not promiscuous or anything. Such is this fool's dilemma. I don't have a vision for a better life married with sex than what I have as a single without.

I made the point in A Fool's Folly, that everyone on earth is a fool due to the fact that all sin is self destruction and therefor foolish and still, everybody sins. Since everyone is a fool, wisdom is a matter of perspective. If a guy has been fighting to defeat his own folly for 10 years, the guy that just started 1 or 2 years ago thinks 10's a genius, but the guy that started fighting his folly as a child and has stayed consistent through the next 20 years of his life looks at 10 and still sees plenty of folly though they are the same physical age. And God, huhhuh, God looks at us all marveling at our self destructive natures. More amazing still, those who have not committed themselves to defeating their own folly look at the wise man and percieve a great fool, though the wise logically lays out the evidence for his conclusion. Revealed wisdom makes no sense to the fool.

The scriptures note that every child has folly locked up in his heart and he is in need of discipline to guide him and drive out folly. Prov 22:15 Further, our founding fathers noted virtue is a necessity to keep a free society, with the first congress going so far as issuing a congressional recommendation to the several states to encourage the sources of morality. Robert Winthrop, Speaker of the U. S. House stated, "Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word ofGod or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by thebayonet."

"Whereas true religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness . . . it is hereby earnestly recommended to the several States to take the most effectual measures for the encouragement thereof." Continental Congress, 1778

Folly isn't cured at any stage in life or by any accomplishment. In other words you never graduate out of susceptibility to folly. It is a disease, an inherited fallibility, a genetic fault. Fortunately, folly is treatable, though not curable. We do not have to allow folly to run it's course to our destruction. The treatment is consistent application of pure and unadulterated discipline. Taking from the founder quote above describing the difference between internal and external personal discipline, we can look to the Bible and discern the different ways the term discipline is applied when referring to fools as opposed to wise. The Proverbs describe a wise man as seeking wisdom and disciplines without being driven to it, even loving it; while the fool rejects discipline and hates you for just reminding him he needs to control himself for his own well being, then opposes external discipline (required to protect the community) to the point of warring against society. Prov 9:8 Study, do what you know is right, work hard, do your best, speak honestly, care for others, do what needs to be done. Everyone knows this stuff, but we fail in the practice by surrendering to laziness, appetites and temptations that harm us. Without those two weaknesses, there wouldn't be the sins in relationships known as contention.

Here we get to the common fool's dilemma. His will is set against his appetites. He wants to do good and be respected and appreciated, but he'd rather not have to do the work required for those accolades. He'd rather be fit and strong but he doesn't want to limit his caloric intake. He didn't intend to become an alcoholic, he just knows all the good times and social success in his life are associated with drinking. (not true but a fool's self deception) So, we are faced with choices all the time which affect our long term happiness vs. our short term fun. Another way to say it is, "Intellectual vs. feelings based choices."

Most of our rut-like behavior is due entirely to the patterns of thought we create. These self destructive behaviors are the result of long established patterns we know as habits. Everyone who has ever tried to change their behavior knows how hard it is to break a bad habit. Now, if you knew where the goal line was, it would be a tad bit easier to gauge your success at defeating habits. Studies have been done to evaluate just how long it takes to establish a new pattern of behavior. Believe it or not, it takes just 30 days. Can you imagine going all the way to day 21 or 29 only to give up and drop back to zero just because you didn't know how close you were to getting over the hump? Now if you tackle everything you consider a 'bad habit' in one giant haul, that might prove just as overwhelming as not knowing where the goal post is. Besides, there is greater accomplishment by going through them one issue at a time. Change that one thing and do it consistently for 30 days and then it is set as an automatic choice just like the bad habit was. Now you can choose the next thing. I would recommend starting with the biggest issue first. If you can beat that one, then you know you can beat all the rest of them. Don't think of this as a temporary way of life until you've perfected your life. This discipline should be exercised for the rest of your life. As surely as you begin this discipline, new stuff will be revealed to you that also needs 'fixing.' (especially as a Christian who studies the endlessly deep scriptures) So, doing the pattern change needs to become part of the new you, a 'good habit' and a strong 'self' discipline.

Apart from the little we know of 'doing good,' none of this stuff is automatic knowledge. Again, that Bible quote describing the folly being locked in a child's heart requires an external discipline to drive out the folly and inculcate 'self' discipline. If you never had that initial disciplinarian in your life, you can't even imagine putting yourself through this work. You have no vision for the goal or sense of how much you must sacrifice to achieve it. Now, consider our culture and all the failures of parents to pass on the virtues they acquired from their parents on top of the failures of their parents receiving from their forebears. Folly building upon folly until the culture forgets it's roots, forgets why virtue is valued, forgets how virtue is passed along from generation to generation. Our culture has graduated to feelings based choices in our national policy. In the secular view, our culture has vastly improved over past times. We are more knowledgeable and less evil than those ignorant and racists and slavers and savages. According to the observation I just cited, if our forebears can now be judged ignorant, drunkard, racist, slaver, savages; what does that make us? We haven't investigated the facts of history if we believe we are better than our forebears, especially our founding fathers' virtues because they are so well recorded. But that is our cultural belief. If not for the intervention of the Holy Spirit and the injection of virtue and morals in our culture from time to time through what Christians call 'outpourings,' (through which large portions of the culture throw off the bonds of folly and begin to apply the precepts spelled out in the Bible) we would be living in a stone age.

The Bible states that a father's sin will be passed down through the generations, up to 4 times. God intervenes for individual families without being called to it by prayer because He set the limit and He is faithful to keep His promises. I am a product of that intervention. I was blessed with an appetite for knowledge and a desire to defeat the folly in my life. I was guided to seek wisdom, I was broken by the consequences of my poor choices until I could receive correction, God set prayer warriors around me to pray for my recovery. But I went all the way beyond 30 years of age before I was healed of my accursed world view. Though every information source I knew agreed with the public narrative we get from the evening news and Hollywood and state historians' text books and schools, I began to see all of them proved worthless. Only my acceptance of Biblical principals would have any effect on my skewed world view. Once those sank in, I sought other scholars because I began to discern the inaccuracy in the information I'd acquired over the years. The search led me to produce a means of determining good sources of information based on respect by those former information sources though opposed by those former sources. These scholars earned their respect on the authenticity of their work. These scholars were forced to prove their conclusions because they oppose the popular narrative. The former information sources only have respect because they agree with each other and form the majority. They are a majority because our culture has lost the value of virtue. Those folks don't want truth, but prefer 'facts' that support their ideology. Their ideology will not condemn their folly. Their power is the appetites of our flesh and the national will to be deceived with acceptance in folly as right, good, and true.

Such an authority on history knows nothing of consequential knowledge.

When discerning observers argue for the values of the founding fathers, the vocal folly crowd populating our institutions of higher learning point out the minutiae of the fathers' faults to discredit their sacrifice and wisdom. Anything to erode arguments for discipline and self reliance or requirements to sacrifice personally for the good of the whole. The selfishness and absolute stark terror their imaginary security could be yanked from them precludes any consideration their choices will consume all security for the entire nation. The national debt will collapse the economy and subject the country to an external ruler like Islam or China. And on the subject of Islam, they refuse even to allow the discerning to do the necessary work to defend them from this global threat. They prefer we act like a pup in the presence of an aggressor, drop to the ground and lift a leg to expose our most vulnerable parts. In their minds, that will guarantee peace.

A job is NOT an entitlement. Neither is homeownership or food or clothing or transportation. These are impossible demands. This type of message was all over the Occupy Wall Street protests. This is an indicator of the level of ignorant and entitlement sentiments in our culture.

Here we are in a culture of folly, and the self disciplined and discerning vocal minority are witnessing it's fall. We hold out hope for the culture to push back folly even if only temporarily. As I watch the conservative party debate their primaries, I am dismayed. Apart from our choices being under qualified to articulate or even recognize the original intent of the constitution, they aren't great candidates to face the general election against a big, unrestricted government, 'entitlement' incumbent. Both front runners have engaged and continue to espouse big government program answers to the problems created by big govenment programs. Neither candidate can demonstrate a turning point in their world views that indicate any depth of understanding of the need for a drastic restructuring of the current responsibility this government assumes for itself. Again directly opposing the limitations spelled out by the founders in the document that defines our United States government. For a government which respects liberty, we need a bunch who will represent and encourage the virtues of self discipline and self reliance in the constituency just like the original congress and president did. For a virtuous bunch to represent us, we need a self disciplined and self reliant culture who choose candidates who respect liberty. Without an outside disciplinarian, we are caught in a degenerating catch 22 loop.

I had great hope for the TEA party grass roots movement. They sounded like the answer to prayer. They espoused the values of the constitution, they believe in the power of prayer (most of them) and they were ready and willing to speak back at the media, the politicians and anyone else the truth as the media and politicians advocated bald faced lies. We had a great success in planting a bunch of TEA party candidates in congress in the mid-term election. We seemed to be on our way down the road to righteousness. Now we have a general election and somehow all the TEA voices I hear on the talk shows sound like the Republicans indistinguishable from the Democrats for a BIG GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHMENT politician. (I'm sorry I yelled, its just so stinking frustrating.) Those voices are cashing out my credibility in the national discourse for a 'better than them' candidate. I AM THE TEA PARTY, and I DON"T APPROVE!!!

Just like families, nations degrade. Unlike families, God never limited nations' degeneration without it's people humbling themselves before God and praying for it. The country has lost it's way. It has misplaced it's faith and chose to trust in the government provision for security both personal and national. Whether people have been bought by a government check or convinced they are exempt from the sacrifices required to preserve liberty, for more than 100 years, we've chosen representatives who ask less and less of us and promise more and more to us with disregard for it's original design and purpose. As for the entitlement folly, all of history reveals where that road goes. It looks like the fall of Rome or the killing fields of Polpot, the Gulags of the U.S.S.R. or the ovens of Nazi Germany. If you want real change and real hope, then replace your faith in government back to God. Pray for the nation and look for your part in restoring the virtues that created and built it into the freeest location on earth to live by your own choices. Pray the people seek answers to explain how they were so deceived with respect to dealing with the global threat of Islam and the false hope of government care which results in the Bureau of Indian Affairs and a Welfare office whose results literally destroy subcultures. Pray the government returns to the practices of inculcating it's constituency with the knowledge and virtues which prevent cultural dependancy.

01/23/2012

A while back, Glenn Beck authored a book called, "Arguing with Idiots." In it, he quotes the arguments (talking points) of the extreme left, right, and other ideologues and then responds to them with what he considered reason and logic. Focusing as much on the 'funny' as the truth as he understands it, he employed a great deal of condescension for the 'idiots.' It could be argued the 'idiots' provide the fodder for their own character assassination. I don't think Glennis proficient at or even concerned about arguing with 'idiots' in a way that comes off as (agapeo) loving as described in my "Other Centered" article, 'making knowledge acceptable' but his intention IS for the betterment of society and of the 'idiot's' own welfare. However, he has hit on the one correct tactical response to a fool's argument. With all the authority of an adult caretaker of an undisciplined child, insist on right, good, reason, truth speaking and accountability.

For my part, the Christian is cautioned not to use the term 'fool' in condemnation of a person. Matthew 5:22 "Rhacca" or 'worthless' could be translated into 'dangerous' and 'deadly.' That being the case, charges of 'fool' interpreted as dangerous to our culture could literally wind up with death penalties for ignorance and honest mistakes and anyway, God never intended we clean the culture by death penalty for ordinary folly. Everyone is foolish. It must be so, because all sin is foolish self destruction and yet, everybody sins. Literally, every person on earth is deserving of the death penalty in that case and what did He hang on the cross for? Therefore, Christ told us we would be in danger of hellfire for character assassination.

In the circumstance of arguing with a fool, if one is not able to be authoritative, he appears as foolish as the fool. However, if he is able to be authoritative, whatever remains of the fool's good reputation is destroyed by his own mouth in comparison to the authority of truth.

Our Lord did not condemn the assessment of a person’s character, but the assassination of one’s character. We're supposed to assess who is and is not a fool for several reasons, but again with the caution not to go around charging fools and condemning them, justly or not. The first reason we must assess the recipient's condition is for self preservation. Fools are dangerous critters. They hate and lie and slander and worse, frequently with no more incentive than an inherent blood lust. The second reason is to measure our answer according to their ability to receive it. The more immature and undisciplined the mind, the more care required in presenting the truth to make it acceptable or palatable. It's literally like gaining the trust and respect of a child and leading them to reason out truth for themselves. "Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; The rod of discipline will remove it far from him" Proverbs (22:15). The opening of a closed mind is usually a matter of respect and eventually, trust. Some of the reasons a mind is closed is based on prejudice or judging in advance of investigation. Some prejudice is based on real experience of abusive authority. Still other prejudice is unwarranted, self serving wickedness. The third reason we must assess the recipient's spiritual condition is to further meet them in the area of their need. A drug addict needs assistance in kicking his habit while an Anarchist ideologue needs a swift kick in the pants. No? Okay, maybe its life coaching, but the kick would make ME feel better. (that wasn't other centered was it?)

Thus it is that I cautiously step up onto the soapbox to laud arguments with fools to expose their folly. My own abilities to articulate the truth to fools is far from where it should be at my age or even at my spiritual age. (the point at which I began to accept and employ the precepts the Bible promotes until now.) As noted again, in my "Other Centered" article, God provides the ability at the right time and any attempt outside of that supernatural embodiment of His power to love in Agape', is nothing if not getting in the way of His agenda. At the same time, I am to be prepared to give every man an answer for the hope that is within me. In that endeavor, I try to be keep up with current events and historical knowledge as well as studying the Bible under the tutelage of the Holy Spirit.

In the spirit of objective truth, lets examine what behaviors exemplify folly. It isn't what we've been led to think of as folly by Hollywood movies and slapstick humorists. That's simply a projection of imaginary well intentioned oafs. The traits of the foolish are listed in the 26th Chapter of Proverbs and they ain't well intentioned or oafish in most cases. In fact, many fools can argue a blue streak and with the current state of the state-run schools promoting anti-wisdom mantras like, "Don't judge people" and "Truth is subjective" fools are purposefully filled with pride and feel justified in loudly and obnoxiously projecting their foolish opinions on the rest of the culture. In my mind, that means we Christians have a huge task ahead of us to combat the misinformation in the form of self deluded popular opinion presented every bit as authoritative as revealed objective truth. If we're not too far behind the curve of mass delusion, perhaps we can pull our culture back from the brink of self destruction. On that score, I agree whole-heartedly with Glenn Beck. I also agree with Ayn Rand on at least one point. Truth must be preached over and over again, constantly for the express purpose of defeating harmful ideas. eg. 'social justice' Truth must be intellectually defended from the ravages of self delusion and evil manipulators. Now lets dig in to the meat of revealed truth.

Similitudes, Instructions1Like snow in summer and like rain in harvest,

So honor is not fitting for a fool.

No one is prepared for a cold day in the summer, neither is anyone prepared to honor fools. Rain on a crop ripe for harvest delays the harvest at best and ruins it entirely at worst (with mildew or stripping winds and hail) So is the building up of a fool's pride harmful to the community.

2Like a sparrow in its flitting, like a swallow in its flying, So a curse without cause does not alight.

Blessing and cursing require the employment of faith. Curses require the addition of the believer's righteousness and evil deeds or unrighteousness on the part of the recipient. Contrarily, the enemy curses the righteous and the unrighteous, the former any way he can and the latter with deceitful promises in an effort to get them to do his bidding.

3A whip is for the horse, a bridle for the donkey, And a rod for the back of fools.

To make any beneficial use of the animals, often they must be given an incentive to do as instructed. Similarly, with fools an authority figure must find and provide immediate incentives to the fool to behave as necessary to benefit the community or even themselves.

4Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Or you will also be like him.

Emotional responses or arguments without forethought bring your character and reputation down to the level of the fool. You wind up impressing no one and improving nothing. Your behavior is indistinguishable from the fool's.

5Answer a fool as his folly deserves, That he not be wise in his own eyes.

There is nothing so destructive to a society as the pride of a fool. He goes about spreading his fool's agenda until challenged by an authoritative speaker of the truth whereupon his foolishness is exposed and his agenda scrapped.

6He cuts off his own feet and drinks violence Who sends a message by the hand of a fool.

The author didn't have a word like 'handicaps' so he described a literal handicap (self inflicted) and compares this self destruction and public danger by his willingness to place responsibility and trust in the hands of a fool.

7Like the legs which are useless to the lame, So is a proverb in the mouth of fools.

A fool is incapable of discerning wisdom and truth. He will misinterpret the proverb and thus the proverb being misapplied is comparable to dead weight as opposed to useful appendages.

8Like one who binds a stone in a sling, So is he who gives honor to a fool.

A stone swung in a sling that does not release it's load will continue it's round until it collides with the wielder. In other words, "you'll knock your eye out, kid!" No society can afford the presence of a proud fool. Honoring him will increase his pride and empower him to spread his folly into others.

9Like a thorn which falls into the hand of a drunkard, So is a proverb in the mouth of fools.

A drunk is more susceptible to auto responses and one such natural reaction to something touching the skin of the hand is to automatically close the hand on the object that strikes it. Closing the hand on a thorn is going to force that thorn to pierce the skin. That's what a proverb does to the fool's character and reputation through his repeating it out of proper context.

10Like an archer who wounds everyone, So is he who hires a fool or who hires those who pass by.

This proverb reminds me of the old cartoon with Injun Joe in which one of his compatriots would always be behind another Indian during battles. When he let fly his arrow it always conked his friend in the back of the head. The employer is charged with choosing industrious and virtuous people to hire. Without foreknowledge of their character, he is taking a great chance in hiring a foolish character. The foolish character is dangerous to be near, especially in a work environment where people are focusing their attentions on their own duties instead of the dangers created by the fool.

11Like a dog that returns to its vomit Is a fool who repeats his folly.

Yes, dogs actually do eat their vomit and yes, fools actually do repeat the same mistakes over and over again as if without memory or reason.

12Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.

Troubling information that fools are not the worst society has to offer. Worse is a man unable or unwilling to seek or even accept correction in his behavior and purpose.

13The sluggard says, “There is a lion in the road! A lion is in the open square!”

Note the terms switch from fool to sluggard but the theme continues. He will lie to make excuses for not doing what he knows he should be doing.

He quite literally groans as he rolls over just like a door on squeaky hinges.

15The sluggard buries his hand in the dish; He is weary of bringing it to his mouth again.

It's a pretty extreme case when a person cannot be bothered to feed himself. These few sluggard proverbs are meant to exaggerate the case so the sluggard can laugh at his own ways and therefore accept correction.

16The sluggard is wiser in his own eyes Than seven men who can give a discreet answer.

Again, but this time not for humor but for force to point out his unwillingness to be corrected. The seven men wise enough to provide discretion are able to measure their answers to make knowledge acceptable to the recipient.

17Like one who takes a dog by the ears Is he who passes by and meddles with strife not belonging to him.

You have to be blind to the consequences, self destructive, looking for a fight, or supernaturally tasked and empowered to insert yourself into another's self destruction.

Ever heard the phrase, "Looking for trouble?" This seeker will find his goal in short order. A prime example comes to mind that has lately made the news. "Suicide by cop." A perpetrator of crimes is relentless and unswerving in his attempt to challenge the police with deadly force until they're forced to act in preservation of innocent life, their own or bystanders.

19So is the man who deceives his neighbor, And says, “Was I not joking?”

A poor disguise or a thinly veiled ill intention. This phrase is so prevalent in present day culture it needs no further interpretation. "It was a joke! Don't get mad!"

20For lack of wood the fire goes out, And where there is no whisperer, contention quiets down.

Contention is not the normal state of relationships. It requires the fuel of an evil spirit to keep stirring up relational problems.

21Like charcoal to hot embers and wood to fire, So is a contentious man to kindle strife.

Compares the fuel and the fire to evil spirits and unwitting people. The wicked want to destroy relationships.

22The words of a whisperer are like dainty morsels, And they go down into the innermost parts of the body.

Tempting is the drama of contention to boredom and the strife of contention easily finds the core of our relationships.

23Like an earthen vessel overlaid with silver dross Are burning lips and a wicked heart.

Once one becomes attracted to drama, they are unworthy to keep company with, for seeking harm to the community.

24He who hates disguises it with his lips, But he lays up deceit in his heart.

The malcontent knows their character is unattractive so they attempt to hide it while simultaneously planning and acting out wickedness.

25When he speaks graciously, do not believe him, For there are seven abominations in his heart.

Once you recognize this character, just know their intention is to do harm to your relationships and murder your character and reputation.

26Though his hatred covers itself with guile, His wickedness will be revealed before the assembly.

Eventually, the truth always comes out and it does so in a public way no matter how well camouflaged.

27He who digs a pit will fall into it, And he who rolls a stone, it will come back on him.

Evil people get caught in their own traps. They cannot discern their self destruction nor it's cause frequently blaming the innocent, but the discerning spirit recognizes the handiwork as being their own.

28A lying tongue hates those it crushes, And a flattering mouth works ruin.

Helps to define hatred as ill intentioned. Flattery undeserved, has an agenda and it is never set for wholly beneficial purposes. It is designed to win the favor of one who can be used to do evil by proxy.

Other verses scattered around the book of Proverbs include:

Leave the presence of a fool, Or you will not discern words of knowledge (14:7).

The proactive Christian is tasked with pre-purposing his mind and will to be subject to one influence. That of the Holy Spirit. Prior to Jesus' ascension after having defeated death and Hades, the faithful did not have these tools. Even so, to this day we are repeatedly cautioned to guard our hearts from wicked desires and evil temptations.

Let a man meet a bear robbed of her cubs, Rather than a fool in his folly (17:12).

If you have not prepared your heart for this fool's specific folly, you may be subject to his influence. That one encounter can be enough to send you off track for the rest of your life affecting your family and everyone you ever rub shoulders with.

Drive out the scoffer, and contention will go out, Even strife and dishonor will cease (22:10).

Echoes 26:21-28 but most specifically 26:23 and provides the more proactive "Drive out" the fool, referred to in this case as the scoffer and in verse 9:7,8 counters the scoffer with the wise.

Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; The rod of discipline will remove it far from him (22:15).

The child is still open enough to respect and trust the loving righteous authority in their lives to be corrected. It may frequently not seem so, but the consistent loving and righteous authority figure will inculcate a deep and lasting effect.

He who corrects a scoffer gets dishonor for himself, And he who reproves a wicked man gets insults for himself. Do not reprove a scoffer, lest he hate you, Reprove a wise man, and he will love you (9:7-8).

This is self preserving wisdom. It prefers the open mind to the closed mind. Jesus encouraged every believer to go to all the world with the Gospel. He forewarned His disciples that they would be hated and persecuted for His name's sake. This call to 'follow Him' specifically includes the examples He set on the cross, eg. death. The dishonor stated above is lost at the point of 'other centeredness' and 'other concern' revealed in our personal sacrifice for the sake of the lost and self destructing fools. Paul described himself as a 'fool' for Christ because the 'wisdom' of Christians is folly in the eyes of the secular world, not for lack of Christian reason or logic, but because of the fools' disregard of reason and logic.

Okay; enough. If you want more, keep going but you're going to have to look them up and contemplate them under the tutelage of the Holy Spirit yourselves. Let me just close by saying, the issue of folly and wisdom is one of the heart. You cannot really reason folly out of the fool, neither can you teach him not to be a fool, you'd be hard pressed to beat the folly out of a fool. No, in God's time, with loving kindness present the Good news of God's accomplishment on our behalf. Until the fool is prepared to receive that fundamental truth, he will reject your proof and resent your insinuation that he is at fault for anything. By the way, Christians are certainly not immune to folly, thus the warnings to avoid the fool in his folly. Its contagious. You are however, empowered by the Holy Spirit to discern truth and you should proactively use the time at hand to study the Bible for pre-confrontation preparation against the day you are stuck in an elevator for hours with a wicked fool, or faced with the folly of your teens on a cross-country drive. I'll have to share the situation God put me in to give me the incentive to study the stuff He wanted me to study in His Word... someday. Either of the above situations would have been preferable.

Desire realized is sweet to the soul, But it is an abomination to fools to depart from evil (13:19).

Doing wickedness is like sport to a fool; And so is wisdom to a man of understanding (10:23).

Fools mock at sin, But among the upright there is good will (14:9).

The lips of the righteous feed many, But fools die for lack of understanding (10:21)

Why is there a price in the hand of a fool to buy wisdom, When he has no sense? (17:16).

A scoffer seeks wisdom, and finds none, But knowledge is easy to him who has understanding (14:6).

Wisdom is too high for a fool, He will not open his mouth in the gate (24:7).

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction (1:7).

The mind of the intelligent seeks knowledge, But the mouth of fools feeds on folly (15:14).

A fool does not delight in understanding, But only in revealing his own mind (18:2).

Do not speak in the hearing of a fool, For he will despise the wisdom of your words (23:9).

Wisdom is in the presence of the one who has understanding, But the eyes of a fool are on the ends of the earth (17:24).

There is precious treasure and oil in the dwelling of the wise, But a foolish man swallows it up (21:30).

A fool’s vexation is known at once, But a prudent man conceals dishonor (12:16).

A fool always loses his temper, But a wise man holds it back (29:11).

A prudent man conceals knowledge, But the heart of fools proclaims folly (12:23).

The tongue of the wise makes knowledge acceptable, But the mouth of fools spouts folly (15:2).

He who conceals hatred has lying lips, And he who spreads slander is a fool (10:18).

The wisdom of the prudent is to understand his way, But the folly of fools is deceit (14:8).

Better is a poor man who walks in his integrity Than he who is perverse in speech and is a fool (19:1).

The tongue of the wise makes knowledge acceptable, But the mouth of fools spouts folly (15:2).

The lips of the wise spread knowledge, But the hearts of fools are not so (15:7)

Because they hated knowledge, And did not choose the fear of the Lord. They would not accept my counsel, They spurned all my reproof So they shall eat of the fruit of their own way, And be satiated with their own devices. For the waywardness of the naive shall kill them, And the complacency of fools shall destroy them (1:29-32).

A fool rejects his father’s discipline, But he who regards reproof is prudent (15:5).

A scoffer does not love one who reproves him, He will not go to the wise (15:12).

A rebuke goes deeper into one who has understanding Than a hundred blows into a fool (17:10).

Though you pound a fool in a mortar with a pestle along with crushed grain, Yet his folly will not depart from him (27:22).

Scorners set a city aflame, But wise men turn away anger (29:8).

The devising of folly is sin, And the scoffer is an abomination to men (24:9).

The way of the fool is right in his own eyes, But a wise man is he who listens to counsel (12:15).

He who trusts in his own heart is a fool, But he who walks wisely will be delivered (28:26).

Trust in the Lord with all your heart, And do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He will make your paths straight. Do not be wise in your own eyes; Fear the Lord and turn away from evil (3:5-7).

Leave the presence of a fool, Or you will not discern words of knowledge (14:7).

When a wise man has a controversy with a foolish man, The foolish man either rages or laughs, and there is no rest (29:9).

In the mouth of the foolish is a rod for his back, But the lips of the wise will preserve them (14:3).

A fool’s lips bring strife, And his mouth calls for blows. A fool’s mouth is his ruin, And his lips are the snare of his soul (18:6-7).

Luxury is not fitting for a fool; Much less for a slave to rule over princes (19:10).

Strike a scoffer and the naive may become shrewd, But reprove one who has understanding and he will gain knowledge (19:25)

“How long, 0 naive ones, will you love simplicity? And scoffers delight themselves in scoffing, And fools hate knowledge? Turn to my reproof, Behold, I will pour out my spirit on you; I will make my words known to you (1:22-24).

“Come, eat of my food, And drink of the wine I have mixed. Forsake your folly and live, And proceed in the way of understanding” (9:5-6).

A much more thorough dissertation on the topic of fools can be found at bible.org

09/08/2011

Don't lose your way. Don't forget from whence you come. Don't shrink from the challenge of our time. Don't allow attackers to shame your heritage. Know your way, know your history, know your times, know your heritage. When you've acquired the status of 'grass roots movement' or 'relevant voice' in America you must expect criticism and most of it unjust. That's ok, but you must be prepared for it, because while we idolize freedom of speech in this country, its not ok and we should not and will not allow or participate in unaccountable slander. Some of the criticisms I've heard that I felt unprepared for were:

1. TEA movement was respectfully Libertarian until the religious people came along.

2. TEA Party people are racist rebranded KKK.

3. TEA Party people are ignorant hicks clinging to guns and Bibles and anger.

4. TEA Party people are violent demonstrators requiring National Homeland Security concern.

The criticisms haven't disuaded me in the least. They have in fact, motivated me to do a little more research and find out how true the charges might be. My initial skepticism proves worthwhile and a little research proves, aside from the fact the charges are false, the critics have far more to be ashamed of than do the TEA Party patriots. I am not ashamed of the TEA Party's reputation and I am not ashamed to credit my participation in it to the ideals I find in scripture and the example of Jesus Christ's life and call.

The TEA Party is made up largely of conservative Christian Americans but it does not exclude fiscally conservative Liberals, nor atheists, nor Libertarians, nor anyone dissatisfied with the highly regulatory, 'tax and spend, big government' model. Our numbers reflect the statistics of conservatives within the various sub-cultures within America including the black and hispanic communities. We are predominantly originalist and constitutionalist which holds government to the limits the founders intended and brings the current politicians to account for their voting history.

The way forward is prescribed in the scriptures that have guided us through the worst of times past, they will guide us through the worst of times to come. Beginning with George Washington and the authors of our Declaration of Independence, this nation has asked for God's guidance and have relied on the Bible. Regardless of liberal and atheist indoctrination to the contrary, we are and remain a Christian nation and the record is there for all to see. Please visit WallBuilders for a plethora of evidence to set you straight on the historical record of our nation's reliance on scriptural guidance and prayerful action. At every turn of great import, our greatest leaders are recorded leading if not listening to another's prayers for our nation, prayers to the God of Abraham and Jacob and in the name of Jesus Christ.

America was born on the principles set forth in the Christian Bible and the application of Christian teachings for both personal and national behavior. American style governance is the newest, kindest, best example of government anywhere and in any time. The closest thing to it in history was the nation of Israel before King Saul was placed on their first throne. Liberals' attempts to 'improve' our government can only reduce it's best attributes. They revisit history and relabel an old idea, THE oldest idea of government and that is "a charismatic leader or group should make everything fair." Its impossible for any leader to ensure fairness. The inevitable eventual consequence of Socialism's ideal is tyrrany. Some cultures try it by measure and others by full conversion in one fell swoop but, the degree to which a culture leans on Socialist ideals is the degree to which that culture authorizes and exercises tyrranical rule. From doctrines of 'spreading the wealth' to 'too big to fail' and from 'immenant domain' to 'prohibition' the actions of our government, outside the authority the U.S. Constitution grants it, continue to prove tyrranical.

The challenge of our time is to face the critics within and the enemies without who would misinform to accomplish, or force a change onto our model of governance. Presently the challenges inside our culture are every bit as dangerous as the external threats. In fact, the internal challenge acts in league with the external threats and that should be evidence enough of their malfeasance but the media will not expose it because the media (being predominantly liberal) also act complicit with the external challenges. The term coined by Dinesh D'Souza 'politically correct' labels a dangerous precept, a product of liberalism. The net consequence of it's practice is to hide the problems with atheism, Islamism, Socialism, etc., and exaggerate the problems with American and Western culture and especially the Christian element within them. All you need do to refute these critics is trace the problems in our culture to their sources and they are almost entirely found in the liberal and socialist influences on our great society.

Your heritage is identified in this: The Judeo-Christian values system is one ideology known to self correct it's behavior, it's culture's course, and it's effect on other cultures has been one of net improvement rather than destruction or imperialism. Are there instances to the contrary? of course. Taken on whole the net effect is for the betterment of the entire world. Take just one issue; slavery was the norm all over the world until Christianity began to work against it within it's own ranks. Christianity corrected in the larger culture the practice of slavery in the nations of England and the United States. The condemnation of the practice of slavery all but eliminated it everywhere. The places where it remains a practice, it is counted a crime or the culture keeps it hidden from media view.

I can't say the American TEA Party has nothing to be ashamed of. I can say it has far less to be ashamed of than any other American sub-culture, ideology, or industry including organized religion, atheism, socialism, science community, educational community, or even the benevolence industry. If you employ the proper judgment, meaning consequences of action over intentions, the TEA Party stands head and shoulders above them all.

08/24/2011

discriminationDISCRIMINATION, n.1. The act of distinguishing; the act of making or observing a difference; distinction; as the discrimination between right and wrong.2. The state of being distinguished.3. Mark of distinction.

Since 1999, I've been studying ever deeper, the radical influence our culture suffers at the hands of Liberals. It started with my conversion to a main stream religion whereupon I noticed the news media were biased against my faith. Then I noticed their apparent hatred of the U.S. military. I remembered serving in the Air Force under Ronald Reagan and the dramatic shift of priorities as Bill Clinton took office. About this time we were attacked again by radical extremist Muslims and this time they managed to topple the World Trade Center. The press' and the hard left political spectrum's behavior after that event caused me to start blogging on current events and as I blogged I began to investigate in earnest our national history, Christian history, and current events became incredibly important to me because I could find online what the media was either distorting or missing entirely. Something in our culture was terribly wrong and I was searching for the root of the wrongness. I thought I'd captured the concept several times, but the evidence wasn't entirely fitting the circumstances I was witnessing. I also began to notice the same wrong in world news media. How can the U.N. condemn Israel 11 times and all the rest of the world's nations combined not once, and place Sudan on the U.N. Human Rights Council? How is this not reported in a way that highlights the wrong in the U.N? The more I dug the more I realized "I've been lied to my entire life. Literally everything I thought I knew about political history was 180º out. At the Left's reaction to the required American response to the WTC attacks, I began to see how history was recorded that way.

Several years ago I heard a speech via YouTube held at the Heritage Foundation. At the time I'd never heard the name of the speaker but what caught my eye was the title of his speech, "How Modern Liberals Think." I used to be a Democrat and switched parties when I realized the Democrats held a bias against my mainstream religion, so my interest was piqued by that title. I clicked on over and spent the next hour astounded at the clear thinking and articulation of truth I had known but could not explain of current influences in policy making and is inculcated into every venue of information in our culture. The man didn't pull punches and he wasn't trying to appeasingly reach out to the other side because the other side simply are not reasoning and there is no point in reaching out to the unreasonable. I connected with this man on FaceBook and messaged him, "Sir, you are awesome. I've been blogging for years and you've said in an hour what I've been trying to say for all those years." Since then I've studied his speech closer and have deduced his entire thesis is summed up in one line. "Liberals' moral imperitive is indiscriminateness because the opposite of discrimination is the suspension of all facts, evidence, reason, truth, morality, decency, and judgment." They invariably side with evil over good to ensure there is no comparison or judgment which (in their mind) leads to bigotry. His name is Evan Sayet and he's worked in every medium, print, radio, movies, comedy, news, etc, and though conservative, his talents made room for him on the David Letterman show and the Bill Maher show and plenty of others. He admits to being heavily influenced by Professor Allan Bloom with his book "The Closing of the American Mind." If you've read my 'Credible Experts' article, you'll recognize his 'aha' moment in the speech.

Liberals equate evil deeds, groups, nations, and individuals with great deeds, groups, nations, and individuals because to judge one is better than another is a form of bigotry and discrimination. In the liberal mind, nobody is (and cannot be) any better than anybody, but they will say the better is worse than the worst to bring about the vision they believe. The Liberal must be a virulent antagonist to everything right, true, good, and beautiful. Evan's speech is so successful because it is hard to believe so many including seemingly moral, intelligent people can think this way and thus our mind has trouble putting together the conclusion Evan Sayet drew for us. Yet, with the dots connected the truth of it is irrefutable to the reasonable mind. It isn't so much Liberals' cognitive processes as it is an auto-response to literal brainwashing indoctrination, to their emotions to pronounced judgments from the religious community, or the scary realities of international politics. The indoctrination is summed up in a song by John Lennon (Imagine) or another by SuperTramp (Goodbye Stranger) and a book by Robert Fulghum (All I Ever Needed to Know I Learned in Kindergarten). It is a Utopian vision and rejects everything people have fought, killed or died for in favor of unbelief, commitmentless, boundaryless, judgmentless lifestyles and behavior. For the Liberal this is how we stop wars and crime.

You see the evidence of it carried out by our Liberal main stream news media with promotional cover stories like The New York Times carrying the American abuses of terrorists 32 straight days when nobody was killed or hurt. The same goes with the Newsweek report of a non-story in which American troops guarding prisoners were accused of flushing a Koran down the toilet. Not only is this not a story and never happened, it is an impossible story. Ever tried to flush a book down a toilet? What they did was try to prove to the world and especially to the U.S. public "if you thought America was great, here's the evidence to show you America is not great but just as bad as their enemies."

This is the unreasoning mind which is now in control of all our venues of information. We must take back the schools, the universities, the media, and the entertainment industry. The entertainment industry indoctrinates starting with Sesame Street going all the way through Queer Eye and beyond to Desperate Housewives and Married With Children. Ward Churchill and Bill Ayers are rewarded for their extremist views and horrendous reports on America's contribution to freedom and liberty around the world, while conservative professors can make tenure, but are simply not preferred in our state sponsored universities. Hollywood has done a tremendous job of convincing the world America lives a violent, criminal, hedonist lifestyle and her military is populated by uneducated ear collectors and sadists.

We must begin to enroll in the industries now controlled by this unreasoning prolitareate. We must begin to offer the public real quality alternatives to each of the industries these brainwashing information service operations. It has begun with some cable news and print media but that is barely scratching the surface. The school vouchers may have been an alternative to the state run schools program but that legislation failed and the reality of our culture eliminates the homeschool as a viable option for most parents. Either charter schools need to be made free or we need the political muscle to scratch the state run school model. Whatever it takes to get these monopolized industries out of the hands of Liberalism. We must retake the information venues. That solves two problems. Defeating the errors of reasonless Liberalism and provides the opportunity to inculcate our cultural values.

08/13/2011

Ayn Rand; Author of the popular book Atlas Shrugged, wrote a chapter on the requirement for every individual to employ their judgment. Further, she identifies the moral responsibility to extol and inculcate moral standards on society to each and every individual through pronouncing their judgments. I don't idolize Rand as many other Libertarians are prone to do but because they do, and because I criticize Libertarians for their absolute abandonment of moral behavioral requirements (aside from not directly interfering with one another), I thought I should highlight her position on socially moral standards and the need for projection on society of those standards. I do consider her works to be an important contribution to the discussion on forms of government as a testimonial but her perception is biased by a life spent under a government rife with centralized power's greatest abuses.

One of her hardest positions is on the issue of reason and much of society's tendency to evade their responsibility to reason out their decisions, actions and behavior, yet she routinely evades reconsideration of the God question since she was twelve. When challenged with her use of the term God bless you, she claims to value the expression as a sentiment but not as an actual communication with a higher being. Yet she is clear on the personal responsibility each of us must accept and act upon to preserve our culture and society in a functioning, healthy, (self empowered) existence. This society, and to my personal shame, even the sub-culture self identified as the standard bearers have failed their God-given role of defenders of reason, and not just reason but the fruit of reason which is the justification of faith, to articulate morality's benefits, to make knowledge acceptable, to make righteous living desirable, and to make God obvious as the Author of it all.

This chapter is well worth the read.

Moral Judgment

One must never fail to pronounce moral judgment. Nothing can corrupt and disintegrate a culture or a man's character as thoroughly as does the precept of moral agnosticism. The idea that one must never pass moral judgment on others, that one must be morally tolerant of anything, that the good consists of never distinguishing good from evil. It is obvious who profits and who loses by such a precept. It is not justice or equal treatment that you grant to men when you abstain equally from praising men's virtues and from condemning men's vices. When your impartial attitude declares in effect that neither the good nor the evil can expect anything from you, whom do you betray and whom do you encourage? But to pronounce moral judgment is an enormous responsibility. To be a judge, one must possess and unimpeachable character. One need not be omniscient or infallible, and it is not an issue of airs of knowledge. One needs an unbreeched integrity, that is the absence of any indulgence in conscious willful evil. Just as a judge in a court of law may err the when evidence is inconclusive, but may not evade the evidence available, nor accept bribes, nor allow any personal feeling, emotion, desire, or fear to obstruct his mind's judgment on the facts and reality, so every rational person must maintain an equally strict and solemn integrity in the courtroom within his own mind where the responsibility is more awesome than in the public tribunal because he, the judge, is the only one to know when he has been impeached.

There is, however a court of appeals from one's judgments - objective reality. A judge puts himself on trial every time he pronounces a verdict. It is only in today's reign of amoral cynicism, subjectivism and hooliganism that men may imagine themselves free to utter any sort of irrational judgment and to suffer no consequences, but in fact a man is to be judged by the judgments he pronounces. The things which he condemns or extols exists in objective reality and are open to the independent appraisal of others. It is his own moral character and standards that he reveals when he blames or praises. If he condemns America and extols Soviet Russia, or if he attacks businessmen and defends juvenile delinquents, or if he denounces a great work of art and praises trash, it is the nature of his own soul that he confesses.

It is their fear of this responsibility that prompts most people to adopt an attitude of indiscriminate moral neutrality. It is the fear best expressed in the precept "judge not that ye be not judged." But that precept in fact, is an abdication of moral responsibility. It is a moral blank check one gives to others in exchange for a moral blank check one expects for one's self.

There is no escape from the fact that men have to make choices. So long as men have to make choices, there is no escape from moral values. So long as moral values are at stake, no moral neutrality is possible. To abstain from condemning a torturer is to become an accessory to the torture and murder of his victims. The moral principal to adopt in this issue is "Judge and be prepared to be judged." The opposite of moral neutrality is not a blind arbitrary self righteous condemnation of any idea, action or person that does not fit one's mood, one's memorized slogans, or one's snap judgment of the moment. Indiscriminate tolerance and indiscriminate condemnation are not two opposites, they are two variants of the same evasion. To declare everybody is white or everybody is black, or everybody is neither black nor white but gray, is not a moral judgment but an escape from the responsibility of moral judgment. To judge means, "to evaluate a given concrete by reference to an abstract principal or standard." It is not an easy task. It is not a task that can be performed automatically by one's feelings, instincts or hunches. It is a task that requires the most precise, the most exacting, the most ruthlessly objective and rational process of thought. It is fairly easy to grasp abstract moral principals. It can be very difficult to apply them to a given situation, particularly when it involves the moral character of another person. When one pronounce moral judgment whether in praise or in blame, one must be prepared to answer why and to prove one's case to one's self and to any rational enquirer. The policy of always pronouncing moral judgment does not mean that one must regard one's self as a missionary charged with the responsibility of saving everyone's soul nor that one must give unsolicited moral appraisals to all those one meets. It means (a) that one must know clearly in full verbally identified form one's own moral evaluation of every person, issue, and event with which one deals and act accordingly, (b) that one must make one's moral evaluation available to others when it is rationally appropriate to do so.

This last means that one need not launch into unprovoked moral denunciations or debate, but that one must speak up in situations where silence can objectively be taken to mean agreement with or sanction of evil. When one deals with irrational persons where argument is futile, a mere "I don't agree with you" is sufficient to negate any implication of moral sanction. When one deals with better people, a full statement of one's views may be morally required, but in no case and in no situation may one permit one's own values to be attacked or denounced and to keep silent. Moral values are the motive power of man's actions. By pronouncing moral judgments one protects the clarity of ones own perception and the rationality of the course one chooses to pursue. It makes a difference whether one thinks that one is dealing with human errors or knowledge or with human evil. Observe how many people evade, rationalize and drive their minds into a state of blind stupor in dread of discovering that those they deal with, their loved ones or friends or business associates or political rulers are not merely mistaken but evil. Observe that this dread leads them to sanction, to help, and to spread the evil who's very existence they fear to acknowledge. If people did not indulge in the abject evasions as to claim that some contemptible liar means well, that a mooching bum can't help it, that a juvenile delinquent needs love, that a criminal doesn't know any better, that a power seeking politician is moved by patriotic concern for the public good, that communists are merely agrarian reformers, the history of the past few decades or centuries would have been different. An irrational society is a society of moral cowards, of men paralyzed by the loss of moral standards, principals and goals. But since man have to act so long as they live, such a society is ready to be taken over by anyone willing to set it's direction. The initiative can come from only two types of men. Either from the man who is willing to assume the responsibility of asserting rational values, or from the thug who's not troubled by questions of responsibility.

07/22/2011

I've been blogging for years and on lots of platforms, so I've noticed a little about how things go for those platforms. They are born on the power of meeting an unmet need and presented usually free but sometimes for a nominal fee. A need is met, the creative entity finds a way to make it profitable and everybody is happy... for a while. The platform managers get bloated or too busy or whatever, but they fail to continue development along the user needs.

MySpace had fantastic success, made oodles and oodles of money but the user was allowed to grab so much addon code and install it to the page that the page would fail to load or freeze your computer.

Along comes FaceBook which prevented the addon code but provided fresh ways to meet the users' desires to socialize in deeper and greater or more convenient ways. So, MySpace pages were abandoned enmasse and people moved to FaceBook who made oodles and oodles of money. Ah, but FaceBook recognized and addressed (inadequately) a problem. We all protect ourselves from strangers and we don't allow everyone to look at our private information. But the issue FB failed to address adequately was the necessity to protect ourselves from people we do associate with. We have to protect ourselves from our friends and casual acquaintances, even our parents. So when Mom requests (demands) little Bobby and Sally friend her on their FaceBook page, she now has the ability and the right to obsess about every friend and comment on their page. If that weren't bad enough, I have heard tragic tales of monetary woe when prospective workers applying for high value jobs find they were denied the job due to a routine web search where the employer learned of their anti-social personal habits or one-time experimentation with (insert your favorite sin here) ________ and/or political and religious affiliations.

So, here comes the Google. (Look up the definition of the word. You'll see how appropriately I've worded that statement.) I hold a huge grudge against the G-team. They have repeatedly injected their political views into my personal life and (in typical Liberal fashion) stomped all over conservative, Christian, and Republican rights to free speech via their search engine page optimization interjections as well as ad sales and monitoring. That said, I'm observing a distasteful fact of life. A large section of my idealogical enemy is again and ever more being rewarded for a great job with oodles and oodles of money and worse, lots of political influence. I don't begrudge the adequate reward for a job well done nor do I begrudge the success of a giant servicing the needs of so many. Only that reward and influence will be employed to destroy more of the idealism which provided the enviornment for their success and my equal opportunity to do the same. So when I give the Google kudos, you've got to know that I do so reluctantly.

Google+ has addressed the "dangerous laisons" issue in a very effective way and the migration from FaceBook and other platforms has begun. Mom get's to read from the family wall but not the friends or work walls. The boss doesn't get access to my partyshots or my friends' comments about my sexual habits. My social circle doesn't get to introduce themselves to my workmates ala careless drunken stupor. That's a huge advantage and more accurately reflects our security of our secrets in the real world.

I'm going into a rant now about how the tech industry is fraught with Liberal idealists so you should tune out now if you are a closed minded biggot of the Liberal slant. First one I have to point a finger at is Constitutionalists. You who believe in the vision of the founders of the United States have largely failed to pass that vision on to your progeny and to proselytize for your ideals. Don't think the Tea Party is a sign of your great success. Mostly those people just want taxes and spending reduced to something resembling reasonable. That has nothing to do with remembering and valuing the founders' ideals. You have allowed this form of government to be renamed from a republic to a democracy. The founders were recorded as describing democracies as unstable and violent and a casual perusal of history reveals the truth of that observation.

The second one I have to point my finger at is the industry of higher education. You have simply capitulated to the nuts in your midst until nuts were controlling and openly recruiting worse nuts for the work of education. If you fought the takeover, you failed. More likely, you saw difficulty approach and you shrank from it. Extremist visionaries rule the college campus in America and the students who enter that arena for the purpose of education are far more likely to come away indoctrinated a radical Liberal than educated for greater contribution to society's overall health. So students of computer science and graphic arts endure such an environment until they can claim their diploma/certification which, depending on the students' dedication, could take years. Years spent marinating in the echo chamber of Liberal professors confirming one another's ever more radical socialist ideas. How else do we find Che, Castro, Mao, Lennin worship, ie. statist murderer worship on campus?

The third one I have to point a finger at is the industry of mass media. You have the same issue as the tech people, you were educated and marinated in liberal idealist advocacy rather than journalistic moral practice and its ideals. Who remains to report the abuses of the advocates since you have become advocates yourselves? The blogs are stepping up, but a vast number of the TV, radio, and newspaper consumers don't yet have access to the blogs. President Obama was quite literally covered from bad press by the main stream press until the blogs and cabble shows made you look like idiots. How else does it require a blogger to point out the Communist flag in an Obama campaign office, or the radical and numerous abuses of ACORN and Obama's ties to the organization, or the radical craziness of Obama's pastor as well as his church's theology, or the radical staatements Obama made on NPR radio in an earlier interview, or the radical affiliations with America hating criminals in powerful positions like Bill Ayers. On and on it goes,meanwhile so-called reporters were digging through the trashcans in a muddy alley in backwater Alaska and interviewing the local librarian for any breath of a scandal on a former mayor. Oh, and what was the scandal that killed Palin candidacy? She was too inexperienced as a governor compared to Obama as a 2 year junior senator. Talk about straining out the conservative gnats and swallowing the liberal camels. I can tell you, I wanted a black president to put the race thing under our feet once and for all, but this was just too much to pay even for that wonderful opportunity. A radical, extreme liberal idealogue, is using his position to give United States' economic autonomy, energy independence, to Hugo Chavez (a growing despot) by freezing any American offshore drilling but giving permissions AND FUNDING to drill the Gulf to Venuzuela. There are a thousand other things he's been doing to destroy Amerca's superiority internationally in markets, in political influence, in military might (in the midst of two active war theaters) and future development of our very culture. Oh hey, but policy is just too boring for our consumers and our readers are more concerned with sex scandals and experts' opinions on the dangers of smoking again and again. You are foxes guarding the hen-house.

Finally, the tech industry (much of it being in positions of influence and impunity) reveals its hand and sets about deciding what the search engine user and information consumer will find? Let this little Davy tell Googliath a prophecy. Since you set about deciding what people think about, talk about, and draw conclusions for them -- you will one day find yourselves cast into the pigs, also known as being Dan Rathered.

references

"cast into pigs" Oh forget it, its Christianese and if the joke has to be explained, the humor is lost. Since finding a Christian on a Google campus would by like finding a flying squirrel, (You know they're there, but very rare and extraodinarily cautious about exposing their presence in your midst) call a church and read it to them before asking how the "pigs" reference fits or why its supposed to be funny if you really have to know. Hint: its in reference to the company identity and not about pigs at all. I'm running the risk of nobody getting it if the Christian readers haven't looked up the definition of Google like you were told.

09/19/2010

I'm pretty sure I've already seen this, but as I was listening to Dennis Miller on replay tonight, he read this letter by Robert A. Hall on air. Entitled, "I'm 63 and I'm tired." the letter reels off the many expectations laid upon the wealth makers of America, especially on the generation which was taught to be ashamed to accept welfare. This is an indicator of a healthy work ethic and the opinions of our youth with such a work ethic tend to lean toward individual responsibility with regard to government bureaucratic policies. Unfortunately, the state literally sets out to 'educate' the needy with information like, "There is no shame in being on welfare." I witnessed the state bought advertising on the major networks to get that message out back in the early 1970's. I don't know that the elites knew the net effects of this message would ultimately bring our culture to the current entitlement society and the brink of economic collapse, however given the evidence I have seen of our cold war enemies having placed cultural saboteurs in our midst, I have to wonder. Their useful idiots to the saboteurs have so grown in both numbers and influence that we are now fully engaged in a mostly non-violent civil war. This war does not center on the entitlements so much as on invalid rights to guiltless sinful lifestyles.

Ironically, or perhaps designedly, the very types who promoted the entitlement society are the ones who will 'judge' the non-producing populace 'worth' according to what they produce. Social Security recipients will be judged an ill investment for health care in their final years. Able-bodied welfare recipients will be judged an ill investment for their unwillingness to produce and their propensity toward criminal behavior. Just about every argument they make for the entitlements and society will not only be forgotten, but all evidence of this will be attributed to whatever enemy they can nail the blame on.

Here is the letter I heard read aloud over the air as written on Robert A. Hall's personal blog:

I’ll be 63 soon. Except for one semester in college when jobs were scarce, and a six-month period when I was between jobs, but job-hunting every day, I’ve worked, hard, since I was 18. Despite some health challenges, I still put in 50-hour weeks, and haven’t called in sick in seven or eight years. I make a good salary, but I didn’t inherit my job or my income, and I worked to get where I am. Given the economy, there’s no retirement in sight, and I’m tired. Very tired.

I’m tired of being told that I have to “spread the wealth around” to people who don’t have my work ethic. I’m tired of being told the government will take the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it to people too lazy or stupid to earn it.

I’m tired of being told that I have to pay more taxes to “keep people in their homes.” Sure, if they lost their jobs or got sick, I’m willing to help. But if they bought McMansions at three times the price of our paid-off, $250,000 condo, on one-third of my salary, then let the leftwing Congresscritters who passed Fannie and Freddie and the Community Reinvestment Act that created the bubble help them—with their own money.

I’m tired of being told how bad America is by leftwing millionaires like Michael Moore, George Soros and Hollywood entertainers who live in luxury because of the opportunities America offers. In thirty years, if they get their way, the United States will have the religious freedom and women’s rights of Saudi Arabia, the economy of Zimbabwe, the freedom of the press of China, the crime and violence of Mexico, the tolerance for Gay people of Iran, and the freedom of speech of Venezuela. Won’t multiculturalism be beautiful?

I’m tired of being told that Islam is a “Religion of Peace,” when every day I can read dozens of stories of Muslim men killing their sisters, wives and daughters for their family “honor;” of Muslims rioting over some slight offense; of Muslims murdering Christian and Jews because they aren’t “believers;” of Muslims burning schools for girls; of Muslims stoning teenage rape victims to death for “adultery;” of Muslims mutilating the genitals of little girls; all in the name of Allah, because the Qur’an and Shari’a law tells them to.

I believe “a man should be judged by the content of his character, not by the color of his skin.” I’m tired of being told that “race doesn’t matter” in the post-racial world of President Obama, when it’s all that matters in affirmative action jobs, lower college admission and graduation standards for minorities (harming them the most), government contract set-asides, tolerance for the ghetto culture of violence and fatherless children that hurts minorities more than anyone, and in the appointment of US Senators from Illinois. I think it’s very cool that we have a black president and that a black child is doing her homework at the desk where Lincoln wrote the emancipation proclamation. I just wish the black president was Condi Rice, or someone who believes more in freedom and the individual and less in an all-knowing government.

I’m tired of a news media that thinks Bush’s fundraising and inaugural expenses were obscene, but that think Obama’s, at triple the cost, were wonderful. That thinks Bush exercising daily was a waste of presidential time, but Obama exercising is a great example for the public to control weight and stress, that picked over every line of Bush’s military records, but never demanded that Kerry release his, that slammed Palin with two years as governor for being too inexperienced for VP, but touted Obama with three years as senator as potentially the best president ever.

Wonder why people are dropping their subscriptions or switching to Fox News? Get a clue. I didn’t vote for Bush in 2000, but the media and Kerry drove me to his camp in 2004.

I’m tired of being told that out of “tolerance for other cultures” we must let Saudi Arabia use our oil money to fund mosques and madrassa Islamic schools to preach hate in America, while no American group is allowed to fund a church, synagogue or religious school in Saudi Arabia to teach love and tolerance.

I’m tired of being told I must lower my living standard to fight global warming, which no one is allowed to debate. My wife and I live in a two-bedroom apartment and carpool together five miles to our jobs. We also own a three-bedroom condo where our daughter and granddaughter live. Our carbon footprint is about 5% of Al Gore’s, andif you’re greener than Gore, you’re green enough.

I’m tired of being told that drug addicts have a disease, and I must help support and treat them, and pay for the damage they do. Did a giant germ rush out of a dark alley, grab them, and stuff white powder up their noses while they tried to fight it off? I don’t think Gay people choose to be Gay, but I damn sure think druggies chose to take drugs. And I’m tired of harassment from cool people treating me like a freak when I tell them I never tried marijuana. Update: People have written to tell me I'd have more sympathy if this was close to me. It is exactly having seen the destruction of alcoholism and herion addiction in my own family that makes me pretty itolerate of people who are willing to destroy the people around them to indulge themselves.

I’m tired of illegal aliens being called “undocumented workers,” especially the ones who aren’t working, but are living on welfare or crime. What’s next? Calling drug dealers, “Undocumented Pharmacists”? And, no, I’m not against Hispanics. Most of them are Catholic and it’s been a few hundred years since Catholics wanted to kill me for my religion. I’m willing to fast track for citizenship any Hispanic person who can speak English, doesn’t have a criminal record and who is self-supporting without family on welfare, or who serves honorably for three years in our military. Those are the citizens we need. Update: A few people have taken this to indicate some bias against Catholics, bbased on events 400 years ago. While I think they are either too touchy or fail to understand, I was onlly trying to say that Ihave zero problem with Catholics wanting to come to the US, but that I hav great concerns about Muslims, as a good % of them do want to kill me, or force their religion and moral code on me.

I’m tired of latte liberals and journalists, who would never wear the uniform of the Republic themselves, or let their entitlement-handicapped kids near a recruiting station, trashing our military. They and their kids can sit at home, never having to make split-second decisions under life and death circumstances, and bad mouth better people then themselves. Do bad things happen in war? You bet. Do our troops sometimes misbehave? Sure. Does this compare with the atrocities that were the policy of our enemies for the last fifty years—and still are? Not even close. So here’s the deal. I’ll let myself be subjected to all the humiliation and abuse that was heaped on terrorists at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo, and the critics can let themselves be subject to captivity by the Muslims who tortured and beheaded Daniel Pearl in Pakistan, or the Muslims who tortured and murdered Marine Lt. Col. William Higgins in Lebanon, or the Muslims who ran the blood-spattered Al Qaeda torture rooms our troops found in Iraq, or the Muslims who cut off the heads of schoolgirls in Indonesia, because the girls were Christian. Then we’ll compare notes. British and American soldiers are the only troops in history that civilians came to for help and handouts, instead of hiding from in fear.UPDATE: It has rightly been pointed out to me, several times, that I should have included Canadian, Australian and New Zealand troops here. My apologies for slighting these gallant allies of freedom.

I’m tired of people telling me that their party has a corner on virtue and the other party has a corner on corruption. Read the papers—bums are bi-partisan. And I’m tired of people telling me we need bi-partisanship. I live in Illinois, where the “Illinois Combine” of Democrats and Republicans has worked together harmoniously to loot the public for years. And I notice that the tax cheats in Obama’s cabinet are bi-partisan as well.

I’m tired of hearing wealthy athletes, entertainers and politicians of both parties talking about innocent mistakes, stupid mistakes or youthful mistakes, when we all know they think their only mistake was getting caught. I’m tired of people with a sense of entitlement, rich or poor.

Speaking of poor, I’m tired of hearing people with air-conditioned homes, color TVs and two cars called poor. The majority of Americans didn’t have that in 1970, but we didn’t know we were “poor.” The poverty pimps have to keep changing the definition of poor to keep the dollars flowing.

I’m real tired of people who don’t take responsibility for their lives and actions. I’m tired of hearing them blame the government, or discrimination, or big-whatever for their problems.

Yes, I’m damn tired. But I’m also glad to be 63. Because, mostly, I’m not going to get to see the world these people are making. I’m just sorry for my granddaughter.

Robert A. Hall is a Marine Vietnam veteran who served five terms in the Massachusetts state senate. He blogs atwww.tartanmarine.blogspot.com Update: Someone attached a picture of Robert D. Hall, an actor, to some versions and forwarded it on, saying that I was on CSI. We are two different people, and I am not an actor--unless you count running for public office.

And to the folks who said I'm Old and should die and get out of the way, I have IPF, so will comply soon enough.